Patterson Road Access Control Plan

This project is focused on developing an Access Control Plan for approximately 7 miles of Patterson Road between I-70B on the west to Lodgepole Street on the east, just outside of City limits. Access points include everything from public street intersections to gated entries to agricultural fields. This is a long-range plan that defines where access points will be located and what level of access will be allowed, meaning which turning movements will be allowed, as properties redevelop and conditions in the corridor change.

The City has been conducting an Access Control Plan (ACP) study of the Patterson Road corridor between I-70 Business Loop on the West and Lodgepole Street on the east. The study is currently a draft plan and is being considered by the City Planning Commission before it goes to City Council. After hearing public testimony of the need for more public engagement, the Planning Commission tabled their decision to provide time for additional public input. 

The Planning Team, made up of City staff and the City‘s consultant, Stolfus and Associates, continue to meet with business owners and residents to discuss their comments. Review the plan below and use the comment field at the bottom of the project's page to leave comments or suggestions.

Thank you for engaging with us in this important long-range plan that seeks to protect an important east-west transportation corridor in our community. 

A final draft plan with changes made from public input received will be published on GJSpeaks soon. Please continue to check back for more information. 


Staff Presentation


FAQ ( 0.13 MB )
Exhibit B - Public Outreach ( 1.16 MB )
Exhibit A - Mailing List Boundary ( 1.62 MB )
Exhibit C - Public Comment ( 2.78 MB )

Comments & Feedback

This case is closed, online commenting is no longer available.
Online comments closed at 5:30 PM MDT 4/4/21.
My name is James Schultz and I worked for 30 years as a real estate consultant with Monument Realty, RE\MAX 4000, and RE\MAX Two Rivers from 1981 through 2011. I also have my Accredited Land Consultant designation through the Realty Land Institute, Rocky Mountain Region. I worked on developing land in the county and in the city and created several parcels that were built on, from home sites, recreation sites, and commercial/residential (Multi-Use) along 24 Rd. through Kathy Portner. I have traveled a lot of Europe and of course, a lot of the USA, and I cannot believe you would build (and have built) such attrocities in this county as double round-a-bouts, reverse lane changes (22 Rd Overpass), 1st street from Orchard to Patterson with speed bumps(thanks to Pat Gormley), and others. Now, you are contemplating destroying Patterson Road for 7 miles? Kathy Portner called it "calming traffic". Why don't you force all of the traffic control people to move out along Patterson and see how they like trying to negotiate their travel under those conditions? Watch what happens to emergency vehicles such as fire engines and rescue squads trying to hurry to their destinations. How many people will suffer from that? I'll bet they avoid 1st Street past Pat Gormley's house. Most businesses will be hurt by this plan along Patterson as well. Why not study the means that other growing cities use to make traffic flow smoother and easier. That would be the best thing for all parties, rather than "calming traffic" and making everybody suffer for it. Perhaps a few patrolmen, especially at night, with radar guns would solve the problem spoken of, and raise some money for the City of Grand Junction. Think about the suffering.... James Schultz 686 Long Rifle Rd Grand Junction, CO 81507
April 1, 2021, 10:40 AM
James Schultz
I was impressed with the input from other's regarding needed Law Enforcement of Patterson Road and other Safety issues. I live at Patterson Gardens Townhomes-between 12th Street & 15th Streets. I hear the City is planning on waiting on our Townhomes exits. Regarding Safety issue: I grew up Safety: my Father (still living) worked as a Nationally Certified Safety Supervisor/Director. If one of Patterson Gardens Townhomes exits is closed-Consider just two townhomes on fire or blowing up as on 7th Street(about 7yrs ago) and Only One entrance/exit for emergency personnel and residents trying to enter or exit onto Patterson Road--Chaos with how many possible deaths? I Lived on 7th Street(1730 N 7th St #1) I lived first hand the damage and chaos--Two homes blew up and Thank God the neighbor Boy's escaped. I got a call and I circled back home-the Firemen would not rescue my sweet puppy (like a child to me) I could not get medicine or anything else and slept in my car that first night. So, we have Senior citizens that live in Patterson Gardens along with family's with small children and some CMU students--how many might lose their lives with Only 'One' entrance/exit ?
March 23, 2021, 10:26 AM
Patricia Star
This proposed access plan for Patterson Rd should have been designed years ago, before the entire corridor was developed, it is to late to do it now, all you will achieve is angry drivers, not being able to access where they want to go without going down side streets find a place to turn around, or drive thru a subdivisions where children could be playing all because you can not turn off of Patterson either because there is a median in your way or because the driveway, or road has had to close, we are not talking about a few we are taking about a lot of access points being closed!! This plan will also increase the traffic on side streets which will make the traffic lights timing need adjusted which defeats the purpose of access control to keep traffic moving. We live on Patterson between 1st and Seventh St in the narrowest part of Patterson and the only problem we have is people speeding, the speed limit is suppose to be 35 Mph but most are going 40 -45 I think the entire Patterson rd should be 35Mph and be enforced, and that would make it a safer street. If people want to go fast they should use I-70 which is not to far north, the city needs to complete the 29 Rd access to I-70, that should reduce the traffic on Patterson. Patterson is not designed to be a freeway, it is a residential and business district. Thank you for reconsidering this plan.
March 22, 2021, 4:54 PM
Brenda, Bryan Muhr
The improvement for Patterson that will have the most immediate and beneficial impact is to actually create a Law Enforcement presence. The infractions that occur for hours on end every day will be reduced and the road will be safer to travel. We can all probably agree that getting drivers to use their skills and drive well will always be a challenge, but please can we just enforce the speed laws. The deliberate speeders and noise pollution creators deserve to see some push-back from our community. These aggressive violations of the domestic tranquility are affecting thousands of people in our community. The racing and macho displays of noise are an affront to common sense and I believe that the GJPD as well as County and State Officers should write a lot of tickets!
March 21, 2021, 7:32 PM
T. Dykema
I believe that this plan is short sighted. The majority of the traffic accidents are at the controlled intersections, The controlled intersections of 1st, 7th, 12th, and 15th are the worst You are trying to fix a traffic enforcement issue with more traffic flow impediments. This will contribute to more vehicle exhaust as vehicles have to drive further to make a turn. And more cars idling while the turn arrows are on longer. The January and February inversions are already bad enough. May I also suggest employing the flashing yellow arrows at some intersections to speed up traffic flow.
March 21, 2021, 1:43 PM
Bruce Schwenke
I have lived on 28 3/4 Road next to Matchett Park since 1992. Many, many people use the park for enjoyment and exercise. I completely disagree with the idea of putting a road through the park to connect to Navajo Way. I feel this would destroy the wildlife habitat and ruin the peacefulness of the park. Please leave the park for it's intended use. I am also against making 28 3/4 Road a right out only street. We have only had one accident at our corner in the last 30 years. The whole plan is inconvenient for city residents. I agree that we should enforce traffic laws instead.
March 21, 2021, 11:59 AM
Kaylynn Tompkins
I think they are called road caps, for left hand turns ..... like into City Market on 12th and Patterson when heading West on Patterson. We have children who ride up and down E. Park Ave. Extra traffic would not be good. Thank you, Willi
March 19, 2021, 6:21 PM
Willi Goemmel
As I study this plan I can see more than one problem with it. Elimination of the center lane is a foolhardy venture. As traffic increases it will be needed to give room for emergency vehicles to be able to pass through safely. Elimination of left hand turns throughout is very confusing and forces traffic into feeder streets to get to their destination - in some cases a mile or more out of the way. All of this will increase traffic on streets that run by schools. 25 1/2 Road is one of those points. It is a mess now with traffic let alone when the proposed changes will be made. The same issue goes for Patterson and 30 Road. The traffic is bad by Fruitvale now. With the changes it will be much worse and these changes have the potential to be harmful to our children in these areas. I also own a piece of property on Patterson at Grand Valley Drive. I see you are planning on eliminating those driveway cuts. Those were guaranteed to me years ago as part of the Patterson widening project. Legally it is the only access to that property. There is a drive that has been used off Grand Valley Drive but not officially designated as such. All of this will make Grand Valley Drive a throughfare and we have enough problems with speeders racing up and down all hours of the day and night. There has to be a better solution!
March 19, 2021, 6:10 PM
Ruth Kinnett
I would like to voice concerns regarding the Patterson Road access control plan. The one that directly affects our neighborhood is the big change to Mira Vista. Right turn in and Right turn out is very restrictive. The configuration of the existing street would allow 3/4 movement. No conflict would happen with St. Mary's. Please reconsider your proposal for right turn only in and out. Totally closing it seems possibly illegal, since the street was created and platted as a “forever” street with access to Patterson Road. (check the plat records) If you do change it as is proposed, you will have to acquire at least one property, if not two, and deed the Right of Way either through the St. Mary’s Emergency Services Roadway and parking lot or into another neighborhood. This could easily affect home and property values and set up possible lawsuits as well from current homeowners. Neither option is favorable for multiple reasons. However, the biggest concern should be from St Mary’s. Why would they want neighborhood traffic where emergency service providers are driving as quickly as possible to deliver a person for possibly lifesaving treatment or action? Having pedestrian traffic in this area seems like an equally bad idea. The total plan to restrict left turn access from many neighborhoods, and I supposed businesses as well, forcing the traffic to the signal-controlled intersections which are already overloaded and have high accident rates. The problem/situation you are trying to solve by causing a hardship on all property owners along Patterson Road was really caused by lack of long-range planning. The city of Grand Junction and its zoning and other improvements has forced the business growth to develop on the west end of town without any thought to the east-west roadway improvements for increased traffic. The development fees collected from all the new subdivisions in the north and east areas should have been planned for those improvements, not new parks and bike paths. The cost of this short-term fix is being borne by the property owners along Patterson instead of the of the seemingly short- sighted city planning and traffic divisions. John and Linda Smith 2521 Mayfair Drive
March 18, 2021, 4:32 PM
John. E Smith
This PLAN is a documented 20 year "pie in the sky". At best, it might be a reasonable 5 year plan with a 15 year directional approach to resolving developing traffic patterns.. The unknown develop progress of the City of Grand Junction is missing in the Magic Crystal Ball that this plan seems to depict. It does seem to attempt to address the internal traffic flow within the GJ City boundaries. This plan is a project more worthy of consideration than any concerted effort and/or money on the proposed 29 Road I-70 interchange BOON DOCK project. All this project will do is direct more traffic onto the Patterson Road & 29 Road corridors and exacerbate the internal GJ City traffic flow.
March 18, 2021, 3:15 PM
Tom Matthews
To close access to any street in the Mantey Heights subdivision would be a major negative safety issue. How are emergency vehicles supposed to quickly respond to issues like a home fire, heart attack, stroke of a resident when seconds not minutes count? Not to mention traffic flow and good access as reported in the leaflet would make All of us travel past our street turn on 27&1/2 rd, wait at the light and turn left to come back? Who's crazy idea is this? Consultants who don't live in our area? Oh but good access is good for business, but not a residential area. Mantey Heights happens to be one of the oldest subdivisions in the City with pre-existing egresses, we should not be held liable for the City's past mistakes of over developing and rezoning properties Patterson Road that has made Patterson Road the super highway it has become. I have live on Mount View Dr in Mantey Heights subdivision since 1989 and find that there is no problem navigating the entering of or exiting onto Patterson Road. No to any closures.
March 18, 2021, 2:18 PM
Gloria J Deschamp
Your plan for F Road between 30 and 31 road needs to be changed. For people living on the south side of F road (like myself), there will be no left hand turns onto F road between 30 and 31 roads. This means all of the traffic from south of F road must travel to either 30 road or 31 road to get to an interchange that will allow them to head towards town. To do this they will most probably use E 1/2 road, increasing the traffic on this road. This road already is heavily used by traffic going to Central High School, much of it being teen drivers. The traffic on E 1/2 road that turns north on 30 road and the traffic turning north on 30 road from Bookcliff Avenue will now have to travel in front of Fruitvale Elementary School to get to the stop light on F road. The increased traffic flow for Central High School and Fruitvale Elementary school increases the chance of accidents with high school traffic and elementary school pedestrian traffic. For traffic west bound on F road traffic wanting to turn south, your plan has the 3/4 exchange on Gerken Road. This is a terrible choice because of the road type and the fact that south bound Gerken road does not go through to E 1/2 road but instead turns west onto McMullin Drive. The better choice for a south bound road would be Grand Valley Drive. It is a straight road all the way to E 1/2 road. Your plan for F road between 30 and 31 road needs a major rework.
March 17, 2021, 8:41 AM
Daniel Nordmeyer
I own property at Patterson Village Square between 24-1/2 and 5 Road. I worry about the impact these changes will have at the intersections where left hand turns are allowed. It seems that currently 24-1/2 and 25 Road intesections are overused. Often it takes more than one light cycle to make a left hand turn. People often run the red lights making these intersections dangerous. I have been involved in an accident at 24-1/2 Road when someone ran a red light and hit me. By making everyone on my block go to these intersections to make left turns, it seems that this situation will become worse. Are there plans to increase turn lanes or make other changes to improve traffic flow at these intersections?
March 17, 2021, 8:38 AM
Susan Waterhouse
PLEASE RECONSIDER CHANGING THE SANTA FE DRIVE ACCESS. I've lived here 30+ years and have exited my neighborhood via Mantey Heights Drive less than a dozen times. It took only once to figure out that it didn't feel safe, as visibility is hampered by a wall. MUCH safer to use Santa Fe. I encourage those in charge of this decision to actually test both streets themselves. It will be obvious that changing Santa Fe would be foolish.
March 15, 2021, 10:05 AM
Kitty Nicholason
I support controlling turns onto and off of Patterson. The current left turn lane allows people to "merge" into traffic and create very unsafe situations. I have personally almost been involved in several accidents due to the nature of this turn lane. As traffic increases on Patterson this will become more and more of a hazard.
March 15, 2021, 9:14 AM
Julie Bauer
I reside on Greenfield Cir E and have examined your proposed Patterson Access Control Plan which will be a severe hardship to me. The proposed right in right out only conditional access safety access point will require that I detour to 30 road. This will result in an additional inconvenience to me in both time and cost. Annually it will result an increase of approximately 292 hours and $541 for my household.There is no access to 29 1/2 Road so that really no other access option exists for me. I profoundly oppose this plan.
March 13, 2021, 7:15 PM
Margaret E Molnar
I wrote my previous comment without understanding what a 3/4 access was. Although this means there will be one entrance into Mantey Heights subdivision from westbound Patterson it still means that we would have to wind our way through the entire subdivision in order to get home. Our streets are narrow, and curvy, most of which have no sidewalks. Many have greenery all the way to the pavement, making travel more hazardous for pedestrians and autos alike.
March 12, 2021, 8:48 PM
Janice E Hart
The 3/4 mile stretch of Patterson between 27 1/2 Road and 28 1/4 Road has no traffic light. As a resident of Mantey Heights subdivision I am incredulous that the ONLY access to our house and subdivision from the east would be to completely pass the subdivision and either flip a u-turn at 27 1/2 Road or loop on Spring Valley Cir., turn left/south at 27 1/2 Road, and then turn left/east on Patterson, and back to the subdivision. Or turn from Patterson down the 28 1/4 Road hill south to Orchard Ave., turn right/west to 15th Street, turn right/north to Patterson, turn right/east so you are headed back to where you can turn into your street. Additionally, if you wanted to go west on Patterson from the subdivision you would need to first turn right to the east, then flip a u-turn in the 28 1/4 Road intersection, or turn left/north there, find a place to turn around and backtrack so you could then turn to the west from that Patterson and 28 1/4 Road intersection. My conclusion is that this plan was not well thought out, as it affects hundreds of people in a very large acreage area (including El Corona Dr.), and will cause more delays, added miles and problems than what is the present scenario. .
March 12, 2021, 7:28 PM
Janice E Hart
According to the statistics published in the report attached to this, 100% of the fatalities, 83% of the injuries, and 87% of the overall accidents that occurred on this seven mile stretch of Patterson over the past five years happened at intersections that already have traffic signals. I would be very curious to see the data that supports the idea that pushing more traffic to those intersections will reduce accidents before being ok with spending our tax dollars on an unnecessary project and pushing additional traffic into neighborhoods along Patterson Rd. It seems that reducing the speed limit and enforcing traffic laws might be a better place to start.
March 12, 2021, 5:00 PM
Katherine Hardwick
I live north of Patterson off of 28 Road in an area with a lot of children, and vehemently disagree with pushing traffic through our neighborhood streets to other intersections. To echo everyone else, why not focus on enforcing traffic laws on Patterson rather than throwing away millions in tax dollars on a statistically unnecessary access control project?
March 12, 2021, 3:30 PM
Tyler Hardwick
Why not reduce the speed limit on Patterson, and also start enforcing the speed limit? 45mph is too high a speed on this road. Cars on Patterson are frequently speeding above this limit, which is dangerous for accidents.
March 12, 2021, 11:26 AM
Molly Nelson
I have concerns as a business owner on 25 Road and Commerce Blvd that the proposed access plan has identified potential access, for a business on Patterson, right through the center of our property. I have talked with two different individuals at City Planning, regarding my concerns, and have been reassured this is a long term plan and nothing would change as long as our business remains.
March 12, 2021, 9:16 AM
Gwen Costello
No. This is dumb enforce laws. Like people running lights and cops watch. Give a ticket for everyone turning left into a right lane or turning right into left lane. Fix North Ave and 29rd Bridge these roads are horrible.
March 12, 2021, 6:21 AM
Tiffany Hoover
While this design "may" cut down on accidents and improve traffic flow on Patterson. What does it do the the the traffic flow on the surrounding streets? Will the smaller side streets be able to accommodate the added traffic from residents driving an addition number of blocks to be able to circle back to their neighborhood? For example I live east of 30rd on the south side of Patterson and if I were to be coming from the east end of the valley heading west to access my subdivision i would have to turn left because I would still be able to at that point (south) on 31rd (through a subdivision) to E 1/2 and head west and then drive through a second neighborhood to access mine. Or pass my street to 30rd and back track though more residential streets. I am sure this will be the case for the majority of the subdivisions along Patterson. Do these residents in the subdivisions that we will now have to drive through get a say on this? This "may" help traffic flow on Patterson but it will just make it worse on the surrounding areas. The number of cars remains the same no matter how you route them.
March 11, 2021, 4:32 PM
B Anderson
I live on 28 3/4 Road north of Patterson and have lived here for over 30 years in 3 different houses. I see how the Machete park is used for walking, walking dogs, disc golfers, bike riders and nature lovers. The ridiculous and costly plan of putting a street from Hawthorne to 28 1/4 road will ruin the park for everyone while not relieving pressure off Patterson. If the Indian creek subdivision gets a road that goes to 29 road would be the cheaper and makes much more sense. Along with preserving Matchette park! Changing the 28 3/4 Road egress to west bound only does not make sense either. The traffic study shows only one accident in four years, what a waste of our tax dollars. Put more effort on traffic laws, the speeding, following too close, and distracted driving are what is causing the accidents.
March 11, 2021, 2:52 PM
Brad Tompkins
Santa Fe Drive must stay open for the residents that live in the Mantey Heights subdivision. It is the best street for us to exit our subdivision as it has the best view to see oncoming traffic on Patterson Rd. Plus it is one of only three streets that go into the subdivision.
March 11, 2021, 10:51 AM
Jeff Anderson
You are proposing making access point #3 a right in right out. We are a self-storage company. Most of our tenants are moving with large U-Haul trucks and trailers, horse trailers or commercial moving companies that require the full extent of our driveway to get in and out of the facility. Making our driveway a right in and right out will detrimentally impede the flow of traffic in and out of our facility, causing these large trucks and trailers to do a u-turn further south on Patterson near the I-70 Business Loop. Or as Mr. Prall stated to me yesterday, make a left on I-70 business loop and get on the bridge to get back to eastbound Patterson. So you want us and all of my tenants to risk trying to make a left on the business loop. Look at the incident and accident reports. Our part of the street has minimal incidents and accidents. We have been here for over 20 years and have made very good use of the turn lane. We are opposed to a RIRO at our business!
March 11, 2021, 7:22 AM
Danielle Wills-Olivas
I am so against connecting 28 1/4 rd to Hawthorne. You are going to ruin a beautiful neighborhoodand and increase traffic right by An Alzeheimer center. Many children live in the apartments along patterson at 281/4 and you are just setting them up to be injured by increased traffic through there. When it happens Changing all these access points is only going to cost money and not reduce accidents. You have to take cell phones away to reduce accidents. But thats too obvious.
March 10, 2021, 12:07 PM
Brenda Walker
I live on 29 1/4. I am concerned with limiting turning from 29 1/4 onto Patterson to right only. We have no quick alternatives to get from my neighborhood west on Patterson. The only alternate route available to me that doesn't involve going backwards to go forwards is to wiggle thru my cul de sac to 29 and turn left at the 29 and Patterson intersection. This adds a minimum 3-5 minutes to my morning commute currently which is why I don't take that route. The left turn onto Patterson at the 29 intersection is a short light with a short turn lane that easily gets backed up. I end up waiting 2 plus light cycles most of the time I need to turn at that light during rush hour. I think the proposed changes will make traffic at the 29 and Patterson intersection worse as more traffic will be going that route. I think if our ability to turn left on Patterson out of our neighborhood is restricted the traffic pattern issues on our alternative routes need to be addressed or a different soultion to the traffic issues on Patterson needs to be found.
March 9, 2021, 9:38 PM
Ruth Morrison-Morin
I have just been made aware of the Patterson Road Access Control Plan, (herein the "Plan"). As the owner of the retail buildings within the Village Fair Shopping Center at 12th Street and Patterson Road for over 20 years, I am disappointed that Red Bud, LLC was not consulted as the plan was being developed, rather than after it is in final form and ready to adopt. However, we do appreciate finally being informed of the Plan and given this opportunity to comment before it is adopted. Red Bud, LLC owns the two retail buildings within the Village Fair Shopping Center at 2695 Patterson Road, (southwest corner of 12th Street & Patterson Road). From the current Plan, it appears that if adopted, the Plan will result in the closure of the existing main entry from Patterson Road to the main storefront parking lot, thereby denying businesses within the Village Fair Shopping Center all traffic access from west bound Patterson Road, (Access Point #117), and providing only a narrow driveway cut access from east bound Patterson to the delivery driveway in the back of the Shopping Center, (Access Point #116). This would be devastating to the economic viability of the businesses within the Shopping Center and such denial of access to the main parking lot from Patterson Road will destroy the economic viability of the Shopping Center itself. The Village Fair Shopping Center paid over $20,000 just a few years ago at the request of the City of Grand Junction to fund a change to Access Point #117 from an existing narrow driveway cut to a wider curb return access, for the specific purpose of improving traffic ingress and egress to and from Patterson Road. This was an effort on our part, at the request of the City, to facilitate higher speed egress from Patterson Road, thereby improving traffic flow on Patterson. Now, the proposed Plan would close this curb return access and leave us once again with only a narrow driveway cut from Patterson Road into the truck delivery lane in the back of the Village Fair Shopping Center, (Access Point #116). This Plan will actually impede traffic turning from Patterson Road into the Shopping Center at this narrow driveway, (Access Point # 116), thereby contributing to more rear-end accidents. If all traffic entering the Shopping Center is force into the driveway cut (Access Point #116), traffic on Patterson will be forced to slow to a near stop in order to accommodate cars using this narrow driveway cut to exit from Patterson. This will not improve safety or traffic flow, but will increase rear-end accidents at this access point. Red Bud, LLC would propose that if it is determined that this Access Point #116 needs to be changed, it be combined with Access Point #117 and remain at the location of the current Access Point #117, and that it be retained as a 3/4 access point with left turn only off of west bound Patterson, but no entry from the Shopping Center onto west bound Patterson, just as was done with respect to the City Market development at 12th Street and Patterson. The Plan also proposes a change from the existing full traffic movement to a right-in / right-out only for the above discussed secondary access point #116 to the Village Fair Shopping Center from Patterson Road. This narrow access point currently only provides delivery truck access to the back of the Village Fair Shopping Center and access to the Which Wich sandwich shop. Under the Plan this entry would be the only access point to the Village Fair Shopping Center from Patterson Road. There would be no access from west bound Patterson Road. If it is necessary to move access point # 117 further west than it is currently located, at a minimum this driveway, (Access Point #116), should be consolidated with the current main driveway, (Access Point # 117), and the single access point to the Village Fair Shopping Center from Patterson Road should be located between the two existing driveways, with a wide curb return access serving both the front and back of the Village Fair Shopping Center. Further, the access to and from Patterson Road at this consolidated access point should be not less than a 3/4 access to the Village Fair Shopping Center, otherwise the Village Fair Shopping Center is deprived of all access from west bound Patterson Road. I cannot emphasize enough, the devastating economic impact this Plan will have on the Village Fair Shopping Center. The number of accidents recorded at the 12th Street and Patterson Road intersection are not the result of traffic movements in and out of the Village Fair Shopping Center. There is already a center turn lane within Patterson Road to accommodate traffic movements in and out of the Shopping Center, which center lane provides efficient traffic flow without denying west bound traffic on Patterson access to the Shopping Center. Almost all of the accidents in that area are from rear-end accidents at the 12th Street signalized intersection, which will not change by denying access from Patterson Road to the Village Fair Shopping Center. In fact the Plan will only increase accidents at this location as all east bound Patterson traffic will be forced to access the Shopping Center at the narrow driveway cut, (Access Point #116). I would request that before any Plan is adopted, the Patterson Road Access to Village Fair Shopping Center be changed consistent with these comments. We stand willing to work with you to reach a compromise which will accomplish your desire to limit access to Patterson through a single 3/4 access driveway without completely destroying access from west bound Patterson to the parking lot and the storefronts of the Shopping Center. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Ronald W. Gibbs, Manager Red Bud, LLC
March 9, 2021, 2:45 PM
Ronald W Gibbs
I don't think it's fair to make a homeowner build a new driveway that won't accommodate existing garages. Subdivisions won't be accessing these properties, only the homeowner. As far as letting the public know about these so called meetings, not all homeowners were contacted. As far as closing driveways that have a circle drive that means backing out on Patterson and is inviting more accidents. I really think you need to evaluate this property-by-property. Don't approve any more subdivisions that will access Patterson. Adding more traffic to existing cross streets will only make them more congested than they already are. If the City of Grand Junction is going to make the owner do this then the city should have to pay for all the construction costs including building new garages to accommodate these new driveways. These properties will have all new addresses and most of them already had to deal with new addresses when the city decided to change F Rd to Patterson. If you only knew how hard it is to change your address and explain that you didn't move. Even when the city gives you a paper stating this change. Utilities are the hardest to change. From my personal experience, after a year of fighting with utilities, I have given up. Let the homeowner that was given your old address deal with it when they can't get service because of an existing service address. If anyone on the City Council had to make any of these changes maybe they wouldn't be so quick to approve these changes that homeowner's are forced to make and pay out of their pockets.
March 9, 2021, 2:38 PM
Pamela Gayle Fults
I have worked with many iterations of city "leadership" for over 30 years. On numerous occasions I have provided thoughtful, well researched information, data and proposals, often at hearings with many dozens of my neighbors. In fact most recently i have worked with the clean air and women's voter organizations specifically about Patterson road. In meetings, presentations and hearings we presented similar materials to what has been offered for years. Again and as usual, the city has chosen the worst of all possibilities in the face of community desired alternatives. Now, specifically I have been asked to address the proposed closure of Santa Fe drive access. As President of the Mantey Heights Association I have been asked to express our dissatisfaction with closing access to Mantey Heights at Santa Fe Drive. It's closure has very little impact on traffic but a GREAT impact on safety and access in Mantey heights. Your total disregard for our needs is most disturbing. You create HUGE traffic problem and solve them by once again making expedient and irrelevant decisions. Hats off to your continued arrogance, ineptness and incompetance
March 8, 2021, 2:50 PM
Tod Pace
I've lived in GJ for 65 years and have no choice but to drive on Patterson Road almost every day. I see a plethora of traffic laws being broken by idiot drivers but see a dearth of traffic law enforcement. It is a rare day that I see a law enforcement officer on Patterson Road, especially during the busiest travel times of the day. That bears repeating: IT IS A RARE DAY THAT I SEE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ON PATTERSON ROAD. Before spending millions of dollars on restrictive infrastructure let's get the traffic laws enforced and reduce the speed limits in those areas where traffic accidents occur! There are no north-south traffic corridors in GJ where one can travel at over 35 mph (1st, 5th, 7th, 12th, 15th 28, 28 1/4 29), but you can legally go 40 on the majority of Patterson Road. On Patterson, where the speed limit is posted at 35 mph, people drive at 40+, where it's posted 40 people travel at 45+. I have traveled behind people on Patterson that were speeding at 60 mph! But the most flagrantly ignored law I see is tailgating. Red lights being run, no turn signaling, turning into the wrong lane, the list goes on and on. If strict enforcement of the traffic laws on Patterson doesn't work, then we can always spend the millions on this plan.
March 8, 2021, 2:24 PM
Kent Beverly
Patterson is way too busy now. With developments on Patterson as well as Cortland this will increase traffic. Access from Pheasant Trail Ct. is very difficult at times especially if you need to turn left. It would be helpful if Daybreak or one of the streets to the east could go all the way thru to 281/4 Rd then we would have a light to turn left at. Adding more signal lights on Patterson is not a good idea as the additional stop and go would disrupt the flow of traffic. Some intersections like 12th and 7th need more dedicated turn lanes so that thru traffic is not impeded by cars needing to turn right.
March 7, 2021, 3:32 PM
James Vidmar
I recognize the need for more controlled access, but limiting access via a left hand turn off of Patterson into the Oxbow and Trading Post subdivisons is really going to lead to heavy congestion at the 30 Road interchange which already struggles with traffic back-up. I would prefer at least one access point to these stretches of neighborhoods instead of limiting access to the intersections with traffic signals. I would state the same concern for the section of road from 30 to 31 Road. Seems to be a bit over the top in limiting access.
March 7, 2021, 11:26 AM
Laura Johnson
We live north of Patterson at 25 1/2 Road, and I wholeheartedly agree with the first commenter who said Patterson serves as a late night drag strip for way too many incredibly noisy, obnoxious vehicles, especially late at night. Any redesign should incorporate elements aimed specifically at decreasing this annoyance for the thousands of people who live north and south of Patterson.. We can hear these vehicles late at night and we're almost a mile away. Secondly, I disagree with all the places where left turns onto and off of Patterson will be prohibited. I understand that a "3/4" intersection means a left turn only will be allowed into the side street, and that no left turn will be allowed back out onto Patterson. We need to preserve the ability to turn left from Burkey Street (leaving the drive-up mailboxes at the Postal Annex) onto Patterson heading east. I use the Annex drive-up mailboxes frequently, and being forced to turn right (west) onto Patterson -- a direction I don't want to go in -- and then have to drive a long way west to figure out how to turn around and go back the other way -- would be incredibly annoying. I'm sure with goes for other people who make frequent use of the Postal Annex boxes as well. We also own several properties on Northern Way and want to preserve or improve the ease for people on Northern Way to turn either east OR west onto Patterson, rather than make it more difficult than it already is. The closest two grocery stores are east of Northern Way, as are numerous restaurants. Any redesign should make it easier for Northern Way residents to access these important businesses east of them with the least possible hassle..
March 7, 2021, 10:23 AM
Anne Landman
My comments don't exactly pertain to the changes proposed on Patterson rd but rather an observation as a newcomer to GJ. I moved my from my Denver home of forty years and a growing recreational manufacturing business here almost three years ago hoping to grow my business and find a slower paced life on the western slope. I live barely 100 yards from Patterson Rd where I get to witness an amazingly huge amount of idiot drivers either " rolling coal" in their oversized noisy air polluting trucks or any number of crotch rockets and noisy little souped up cars intending to see how fast and loud they can get from 28 Rd to 29 Rd! If there ever were a reason to pack up both my home and business this would be it! If it weren't for the fact that we love our house and aren't ones to move as a knee jerk reaction because we live near what friend that's lived here a long time has started the road " Neanderthal Blvd" It makes me incredibly tense every time I venture out onto Patterson ( aka Neanderthal) We Don't need to make the road faster! We need to make it a more evenly paced road with ways to slow the stretches down so as to not make it appealing the the " rolling coal trucks and drag racers" I don't have any great suggestions but I think some smarter engineers ought to be able to come up with some solutions. Maybe there needs to be ways to break up the speedways while creating a more even flow.
March 7, 2021, 8:17 AM
Kevin Molick
Would disagree with the closure of Santa Fe Dr. (158). Much easier to see to enter Patterson from Santa Fe than Mantey Heights (157). There is a wall to the left of Mantey Heights that limits the view of on-coming traffic. Most residents of the Mantey Heights area use Santa Fe to enter Patterson Road. Karen Perrin
March 6, 2021, 10:43 PM
Karen E Perrin
Much better visibility for a right hand turn on to Patterson from Santa Fe Dr rather then Mantey Heights Dr. A wall limits visibility of oncoming traffic on Mantey Heights Dr. Many residents of Mantey Heights use the Santa Fe exit for this reason.
March 6, 2021, 3:27 PM
Ray McGuinness
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Your Question has been submitted.